In so ruling, the Court cited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) which provides that, “For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues [or] claims.”

Judge McLaughlin found that it “makes sense” to separate out the UIM claims from the bad faith claims in this matter. The court noted that UIM claim require a determination of the liability and damages issues. The issue of the process that the insurer went through in its investigation as to the Plaintiffs’ claims “is not relevant” to the liability and damages issues.

The court also noted that the difference between the two types of claims against Allstate Insurance Company was also “obvious when discovery is considered.” More specifically, the discovery on the UIM claim “should” be rather limited with respect to Allstate as opposed to the wider discovery that may be permitted in a bad faith claim.

Judge McLaughlin also concluded her Order by indicating that “[i]n addition, it may be that the bad faith claim will become moot as the underlying case is litigated, or its focus may end up being Allstate’s conduct in the future.”

Based on this reasoning, the court granted Allstate’s motion to bifurcate and stay the bad faith claim in a post-Koken case.

Anyone desiring a copy of this detailed Order in the case of Moninghoff v. Tilet and Allstate Insurance Company may click this LINK.

I send thanks for the prevailing defense attorneys, Kristin H. Jones and Marshall Walthew of the Philadelphia office of Pepper Hamilton LLP for forwarding this decision to my attention.

DISCLAIMER

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire publishes this site for general informational purposes only. The materials in this website do not constitute legal advice, do necessarily reflect the opinions of the law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins or its members, are not an indicator of future results, and are not guaranteed to be current, up-to-date, or applicable to your circumstances. Under no circumstances should you rely upon the information contained in this website without first seeking out and securing your own attorney.

This website and the transmission is not in any way intended, and does not operate, to create an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity. No attorney-client relationship will be created with Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire or the law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins unless and until you have purposefully sought to retain us, we have had a chance to clear any conflicts, and you receive a letter from us confirming the creation of an attorney-client relationship and explaining the parameters of the relationship. It is also noted that Attorney Daniel E. Cummins and the law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins only practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

With respect to the links on this website, they are not intended as referrals to, or endorsements of, those linked sites.

Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the law firm of Foley, Cognetti, Comerford, Cimini & Cummins can guarantee that the material accessible from this website will be virus free.

In creating this website, Daniel E. Cummins and the law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins have strived to comply with all legal and ethical requirements. Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins or its members intend to practice law in any jurisidiction where they are not licensed to practice. Daniel E. Cummins and Foley, Comerford, & Cummins DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS WARRANTIES AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.